The Nix Illusion

[Chris Bristow]

There is a bit of misinformation due to those ghost images. Sometimes people say that fender image shows(Can't remember which frame) Chaney hitting his brakes when his fender dips down relative to the rest of the frame. But because the fender image is from another frame it can move independently of the current frame and so when the last or next frame jiggled it made it look like the fender dipped down. 

[Walt Cakebread]

Look at the Frames Z330 and Z337 as examples in the Zapruder film and examine the cog region of the film. Is there a logical explanation for seeing a clearly visible front motorcycle wheel at the top (Z330) and  seeing more of the curb (Z337) in the cog region?  Please explain in Z337 why there is a square "cut off" in the front of the President's head or why Jacqueline's arm in that region is fully visible below and above the head "region"?   My guess is that the film was totally altered in those regions to coincide with all shots coming from the rearward.  Even though JFK can be seen in other footage to be moving back and to his left on possible impact.  I say possible because it takes an awful long time for Jacqueline to register alarm! 





I would also speculate that the first shot was much lower as evidenced by JFK putting his hand to his chest and then later Jacqueline is examining chest and not his neck region (judging by her hands and facial position). 

As of now,  we see "Ida Dox" illustrations of where bullets landed and based largely on hearsay or what supports the LNer narrative.  Why were x-rays and pictures of his body not presented and why were they withheld from public for so many years?   Why the need to hire someone to "draw" pictures based on a story teller rather than present the WC with the real evidence?  Are x-rays gruesome?   Do they even exist or was all this evidence shredded or made up and given to Ida Dox.  We know that some of original doctors at scene said the gunshot came from the front and exited out the back of head. 

Of course, the controlled narrative makes sense and would explain why so much remains hidden and kept from the public for so many years- 50 or more.   Of course Zapruder frames portray the total front half of face missing and gone.  If you believe the image of the face shown on Wikipedia - the President's with eyes wide open and no damage to front, you have to figure someone is controlling what you see!  Also, it defies logic that you would consider using a wound hole to the side of the neck to make a hole into your windpipe to aid breathing.  Unless of course the wound had penetrated the windpipe and you were putting a tube directly into an existing hole to the windpipe.  Nothing logical here and no mention of that in autopsy results!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy

You also know that Dan Rather (news media) had already stated within days that there was one assassin and that all shots came from Oswald and the TSBD and were from behind.    He describes in detail body movement to the front!  John Connally in his hospital bed already knew that Oswald was the lone gunman and that it was clear that "he" wanted to kill both of us!   Contrast that to Jacqueline saying "they" killed my husband.

 

Conclusions were already pointing to one shooter.  Also no one can explain why Life (Time Life) paid Zapruder big bucks for the entire film but kept it from the public and showed frames selected for supporting LNer theory only for the WC report?   Who was publisher of Life magazine at the time and did he have governmental ties (ie. CIA or FBI or SS)?  Who really was C.D. Jackson and did he really have ties with Allen Dulles?  Were they both CIA operatives and part of a massive coverup plan?

Those are facts plain and simple.  If it was a simple Lone nut gunman, a 1000 page WC report would not have been needed.  You would have no need to assassinate LHO and he could have been tried by a grand jury of regular peasants and there would have been no need for a "politically" formed a commission to examine and weigh in on the evidence!

Excellent post , Mr. Fritzke......  You obviously are one of the few who aren't afraid to face the facts.  Most "researchers" want to find a comfortable tale that allows them to avoid the bitter truth....

[Allan Fritzke]

Well you may be able to try and explain away the camera zoom, it comes and goes and yet there is no evidence that he was touching the zoom if there was one.  I think the finger would be on focus as I don't think it was automatic!    The camera is not changing and zooming in between Z329 and Z330, so hard to justify comparing those frames.   However, you can not explain the "square" in the Lightbox frame in Z337 which appears to extend out into the grass (like cellophane tape!). What is with that?   Nor can you explain in Z369 the appearance of sunglasses on the man and woman bystanders as if to conceal their identities.



Nor can you explain in Z369 the appearance of sunglasses on the man and woman bystanders as if to conceal their identities.  In fact, on the man, "the black shadow" below the eye appears to be "paintlike" in nature and dripped a little below sunglasses if you zoom in!   Yeah there is no evidence of any film tampering!  Faces are washed out many times to obscure the identity of individuals in many frames (in my opinion) and it is not by coincidence!



Also w.r.t. the Zapruder film, 3 copies were supposed made from original by Zapruder.  In the 150K deal, did Life get all copies and destroy them as part of the deal?  Yes, we are told SS got a copy etc. etc.  Who held the original?    Who destroyed the rest of the copies and why?  It seems we are back to only having one "original" at the archives, tattered and torn!   Obviously every time a reproduction is made, the resolution becomes worse.  I would suspect the original would have been something to see and revealed a lot more information.  Are there more than one film left that one can compare to judge consistency?    Do they all show the same modifications?  For example, tears in film match each to "original" and frames like Z330, Z369 which show modification and definite face obscuration?  Interesting they didn't draw black across the third party's face and just left it blotted out!  The woman they left a mouth open on to appear as shock!  Blurring due to camera movement or obscuration?  Entire shape of body crystal clear except for face detail!

 

[Chris Bristow]

Yes there was a zoom, it was called the 'Zoomatic'. The field of view remains around 15 degrees up through fr313. Did not check after 313. Most cameras of the day were closer to 30 degrees. But the image extending into the sprocket areas is supposed to be due to the zoom. That makes sense because enlarging the image with the zoom should move the image onto the sprocket area.
 So the zoom effect extends the image into the area between the sprockets. Then because each frame shares a sprocket the image in the sprocket area is reproduced in each frame( except the first frame which has no image above the top sprocket because there was no frame before frame one so nothing to carry over to frame two.)
 The square I see just right of JFK's head is the window frame on Nellie's door. It is half rolled up.  It is visible in the Muchmore and hughes film as the limo turns from Main to Huston. If you check those films and then scroll though Z frames you can tell if that window is what you are seeing. At times the inside top of the frame will reflect Jackie's dress and sometimes the red bouquet.
 The sunglasses on those people would not be of any value. That is the Franzen family and they have given statements, they are known witnesses.


Jack Franzen (on south side of Elm Street, near the Presidential limousine at the time of the shots), November 22, 1963: “He said he heard the sound of an explosion which appeared to him to come from the Presi- dent’s car and noticed small fragments flying inside the car and immedi- ately assumed someone had tossed a firecracker inside the automobile.” [FBI report: CE1428: 22H840]
Mrs. Franzen (on south side of Elm Street, near the Presidential limousine at the time of the shots), November 22, 1963: “She advised shortly after the President’s automobile passed by on Elm Street near where she and her family were standing, she heard a noise which sounded to her as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the President’s automobile. She advised at approximately the same time she noticed dust or small pieces of debris flying from the President’s automobile.” [FBI report: CE2090: 24H525]

Almost every blurry face on the South side of Elm has been identified and most have given statements.
    I am not out to explain away all the oddities of the Z film. I am definitely a CT'er but when you have a 50 year old who dun it, you have lots of armchair theories that don't hold up. I find the majority of Z film claims are provably false. I like photogrammetry and optics  as a hobby and the more I learn the more I find claims of fakery to be false. That said I posted a thread about the issue of the Stemmons sign and it's apparent lack of pincushion distortion which I find to be a compelling argument for fakery.

[Allan Fritzke]

Thanks for update on Zoomatic camera option.  Can you see where he made the zoom?  Every time I have zoomed with a camera you can see the image gets larger.  The zoom anomaly appears to disappear again at Z351 but I fail to see any of the footage zoom out.  However, that area becomes normal cog area again.   Just questioning why and how it pertains to an actual zoom if it was being used for that sequence of filming.

I am fully aware of the window being half way up next to Nellie.  However, you are missing the line.  It goes right through the grass, down Jacqueline's side of head/pink bonnet and through the President's head cutting off hair and ear and extends down to the black line of the automobile at bottom!  The window edge is in the center of this square and not part of cut.  The grass looks off color as well.   Download it from website and zoom in!  If you look closely you can see the head and ear in other frames prior to Z313.  Look at Z312, download and compare the two and you should be able to see what I see.   Where you expect the head should be, you see Jacqueline's shoulder instead in that region, but ear along the cut edge is still there!   That to me is total modification on Zapruder frames. 







Modifications of facial details to obscure identities may not just be for those individuals.  You must realize that you have to show film consistency when eliminating identities of the people in question.  The man rolling into the grass at time of shooting never was identified until many years later.  Are you sure they got the right guy to interview then?  Also can you tell me the identities of the colored guy and the bald? guy in blue jump suit at Z227.  Were they not the important witnesses to the first shot?  Editing was done in the first 2 days and really needed to determine yet who they were going to interview - so at best obscure him and bring in as required.   

[Jerry Organ]

The motorcycle fender in the sprocket area is actually in the out-of-frame foreground, probably Chaney's. When Z330 was exposed, small amounts of area in the sprocket hole area were also exposed onto the frames preceding and following. Thus Chaney's fender in Z330 would be in the sprocket area of Z331; notice that the fender is focused in Z331 while the rest of Z331 is shaken. That means the fender in Z331 belongs to Z330.

If you look just above the Cheney fender, you will see the motorcycle lamp and the passengerside profile of the rear chrome bumper and step of the limousine. I don't know how accurate my model overlay is but it gives you an idea.

The film points downward and Cheney's helmet appears for a frame in Z332 (on right edge near the lower sprocket hole):

[John Tonkovich]

Let's not forget the history of the Nix film in the whole JFK assassination debate, especially because it's an object lesson in misunderstanding of evidence.
For years, believers in the grassy knoll theory/second gunman fantasy were hell bent on finding this unicorn in the background of the Nix film. Avoiding this pitfall, others did, more importantly, note the disparities between Nix and Zapruder.
Timing, in relation to the limo speed in the Zapruder film, is everything.

[Allan Fritzke]

I am curious what makes the film image in the cog area come and go.  Thanks for explanation Jerry. The car appears to be slowing down before Z313 as you can see the motorcycle front tire is gaining on the car which matches Nix film.  There is also interesting imagery in that area during the first shot.  Is that image a reflection from back of polished sign or are you seeing someone below the sign in the upper image?

I still await opinion on what I consider editing on Z337.    Anyone offer a solution?  To me, it looked like sloppy editing caught.  That is one frame I can pick it out on.   If one is modified that I can find, how many others that I can't have been modified to support the LNer narrative and falsify information.   Take it one step further, who would purchase the film for a large sum of money and then only release slides to support a one sided argument?  As I said,  the characters in the film have had their faces "smudged and smeared".  Unlike the moving car, the images (body images are well definedand yet no detail on the faces which defy logic.

On Z337, you can see his ear and hair and you can see a line going through his face and you see her shoulder on the other side of line and her arm and flowers down below on that same side.  The case of the disappearing head was a sloppy cut and paste when they recreated the film in my opinion.  They had to get it done in a hurry, likely 12 hours!




 

The validity of the film would have to be verified and matched up with Zapruder's family pictures on the other side to know if it was same film or was spliced together and then reimaged.   You could also then compare resolution of those pictures to see if resolution was being lost due to recreation.   Obviously one side grainy and other side clearer, would validate film.   It would be interesting to note the markers on the film in the cogs, the letter c appears at Z303 and again at Z370.   One would have to look at the original film markers and see if the length matches.  The letter c is 67 frames apart.  I am sure the sequence would be repetitive.  This is the second side of the film we are told so it would be good to examine the Zapruder recording on the other side and see if it also contains markers that would match!   What markers did an unexposed film of the day have?  Did the film get marked on both sides and what frequency of repetition of markers?

By rights, the film should have been entered in as evidence but I guess there was not trial but a WC instead!